AppleInsider Staff
Google announced on its Chrome blog on Tuesday that the latest "Stable" release of its browser adds support for high-resolution Mac Retina displays. The software is now available for download from Google's website.
The search giant first announced in June that it was working on adding high-resolution support to its browser for Retina display Macs. Chrome stood out as one popular software choice that looked particularly poor on the Retina display MacBook Pro.
Released at the Worldwide Developers Conference in June, the 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display has a screen resolution of 2,880 by 1,800 pixels. Optimized versions of Apple's own software for OS X, including its Safari Web browser, became quickly available, while some third-party applications took more time.
Chrome and Valve's Steam were singled out by AppleInsider in its own review of the MacBook Pro with Retina display. While Chrome has now been updated for the Retina display, Steam and other popular applications, like Adobe Photoshop, have yet to be updated.
Malcolm Owen
William Gallagher
Charles Martin
Christine McKee
19 Comments
Of course that's worthy of an entirely new version number.
In five years, they'll be releasing Chrome 113, which is different from Chrome 112 in that they fixed a bug where one single HTML6 tag showed up incorrectly.
Of course that's worthy of an entirely new version number.
In five years, they'll be releasing Chrome 113, which is different from Chrome 112 in that they fixed a bug where one single HTML6 tag showed up incorrectly.
There are definitely too many versions in a hurry but It was NOT the ONLY part of the release.
[quote name="Tallest Skil" url="/t/151658/google-chrome-browser-updated-for-apples-retina-display-macbook-pro#post_2158888"]Of course that's worthy of an entirely new version number. In five years, they'll be releasing Chrome 113, which is different from Chrome 112 in that they fixed a bug where one single HTML6 tag showed up incorrectly. [/quote] I have no problem with them doing versions in that way. There really is no good way to choose when a primary, secondary , tertiary, etc. version should be changed. Do you measure the amount of effort? The time? The cost? UI changes The number of lines changed? In the end what it comes down to is if the browser is good and if it's better than the previous version it's replacing. On top of that, when it comes to something users spend so much time using any way to make them aware that they should have the best version for their chosen the better, but with Chrome that's a moot point as the updates are seamless.
Just to be clear the 15-inch MacBook Pro display resolution is of 1440 x 900 by default, and can be upped at 1920 x 1200. [quote name="Tallest Skil" url="/t/151658/google-chrome-browser-updated-for-apples-retina-display-macbook-pro#post_2158888"]Of course that's worthy of an entirely new version number. In five years, they'll be releasing Chrome 113, which is different from Chrome 112 in that they fixed a bug where one single HTML6 tag showed up incorrectly. [/quote]Hmm, excepting that they don't advertise any version number, unlike firefox or others, so your rant is pointless.
What do you mean there's no good way to choose? Everybody else manages to use the convention well enough. Look at Apple's own apps for example - they're mostly in single digit major releases because they follow the industry standard of Major update . Minor update . Maintenance update (Bug fix or very minor feature) You can quibble about exactly what goes in each division, but it's generally pretty obvious when an update is major or minor. Even OSX itself follows this pattern pretty consistently, (with occasional exceptions like adding the Mac App Store as a maintenance release). There's a difference between installing a security patch and upgrading to a new browser engine. I'd want to know which I was doing in advance because sites or plugins I'm relying on might be broken for a while after a major update. Chrome and Firefox's sudden switch to ludicrous versioning is nothing but a cynical ploy to make themselves seem more mature than IE and Safari (even though they're much younger) because they have bigger version numbers. It's pathetic.